Monthly Archives: June 2016

I think there is a lot of value in some types of Christian counseling, where individuals or couples/families can work through issues with an independent person who has skills in helping them think through things carefully and biblically.

But when it comes to specific sins, sometimes we just need to stop them.

Here are some supporting commentaries, in ascending order of value. First, Homer:

Homer: Marge, I want you to admit you have a gambling problem.
Marge: You know, you’re right, Homer. Maybe I should get some professional help.
Homer: No, no, that’s too expensive. Just don’t do it anymore.

1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Pyromaniacs: Avoiding is too mild in light of what Paul actually told them: “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18). But first he hammers them with several reasons why fornication is such an unholy, degrading, defiling sin: It dishonors the purpose for which God made our bodies. (1 Cor 6:13) It defiles our spiritual union with Christ. (1 Cor 6:15-17) Such sins of the body also desecrate the Temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6:19) Now, put all this together. You want to know why fornication has always been regarded as a particularly heinous sin? Because it involves personal and direct transgressions against each Member of the Trinity. It debases and dishonors the body, which (v. 13) is “for the Lord.” God created it for His purposes. To use it for any other purpose-especially a purpose as evil as an act of fornication-is a sin against God the Father. It’s a sin against Christ as well (v. 15), because it takes our members, which are Christ’s by union with Him, and joins them to a harlot, defiling our holy union with Christ. And it’s a sin against the Holy Spirit (v. 19), because it desecrates the temple in which He dwells. And notice Paul’s counsel to the Corinthians. He doesn’t urge them to get into a recovery program for sexual addicts. He doesn’t suggest that they get therapy. He just tells them to stop it.

Don’t forget that believers have help: Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

FLUKE: Well, I’m so glad you asked because this is a huge victory for the women of Texas and so many states that were really suffering under these trapped laws. But we have an ongoing fight in many states, especially around a affordability. This is about making the right to reproductive access a reality in practice, not just on paper. And if you can’t afford to exercise this right, it’s really not as meaningful to you. So for women who are in the military, women who receive medicaid, and even women who live in states where they can’t afford or are not allowed to buy insurance that covers abortion on their state exchanges, they have major barriers to access. And that’s our next fight.

Please let me translate: “Hi, I’m Sandra Fluke. Sure, I could afford $50,000 per year for law school, but I slept around so much that I couldn’t afford condoms. And the guys I slept with (they weren’t committed enough to me to call them “boyfriends”) didn’t value me enough to pay for them. So it is the responsibility of society to pay! And if the birth control fails, or I’m just too irresponsible to use it properly, then society needs to pay to have my child killed. Because reproductive rights (uh, please ignore the fact that if I’m killing my child I have obviously already exercised my right to reproduce). P.S. I have no idea why people call us “pro-abortion” and not pro-choice . . . I mean, just because we don’t want taxpayers to be able to choose whether they pay for more abortions . . . ”

OK, I know the real answer. They are both Romans 1 poster children and Molech-worshiping ghouls at heart. I’m just going to show how their views and actions are not only evil but wildly inconsistent with their own worldviews. And yes, I am very grateful that some atheists are pro-life. But most aren’t.

As odd as it sounds, atheists and “Christian” Leftists are birds of a feather theologically and politically — worshiping Charles Darwin and his survival-of-the-fittest motif*, denying the deity and exclusivity of Jesus, pushing LGBTQX perversions on the populace and especially on children, denying miracles, mocking the word of God, etc. In business jargon, think of it as Satan going to market through multiple channels.

But their pro-abortion extremism** is one of the things they have to work the hardest at reconciling to their worldviews. Wouldn’t the “It’s all about getting our selfish genes into the next generation!!” atheists and the “Won’t somebody please think about the least of these?!” “Christian” Leftists be wildly pro-life? How could they possibly justify killing children up to their first breath?!***

Both groups allegedly love science, yet they continually deny the simple fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. It is the same human being at different stages of development. At least that’s what all those pesky embryology textbooks say and what leading pro-abortionists concede. (Time saver for those objecting to the link being at a pro-life page: Do not commit the genetic fallacy and dismiss the information because of its source. First, using that logic you’d dismiss everything Planned Parenthood says for the same reason, and we know you don’t do that. Second, the site cites (heh) non-pro-life sources.)

One of their justifications is that some of the children might be disabled. Such compassion! They remind me of Dr. Nick Riviera of The Simpsons: “Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.” Note to self: Don’t let them be in charge of the Special Olympics. After all, once they’ve determined that being disabled is a capital crime for a human being, they’ll eventually do it outside the womb. Starting point: Their love for euthanasia.

They’ll also exploit rape victims with the fallacious “rape/incest” exception****, as if killing the child of the rapist was a good solution and even though abortionists like Planned Parenthood are serial hiders of rapists and sex traffickers.

They’ll pretend to care about the fake overpopulation risk, ignoring that most hunger issues are due to corrupt leaders and/or localized weather issues that will not be helped by you killing your children. But even if we had overpopulation issues, we aren’t talking about birth control. The pro-aborts are pretending to save some hypothetical lives — because apparently the shelves are empty at their local Safeway — by killing existing human beings. Again, not to get all science-y, but just because the children are still in the womb doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

And as always, the atheists are downright incoherent by criticizing pro-lifers (or anyone else, for that matter). If their nothingness-to-molecules-to-man view was really true, they would “know” that everything we think and do is caused by Darwinian evolution — even our religious and pro-life beliefs! So why would they be so irrational as to criticize what their pet theory created? (Heh.)

The “Christian” Left butchers Matthew 25:40 the way abortionists butcher children.

Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Yet they read that and still support abortion at any time for any reason up until the child’s first breath. If an unborn child isn’t the “least of these,” who is?

Ironically, religious people reproduce much faster than atheists, so they’ll continue to be a minority. I guess that never occurred to these “free thinkers.”

*Whether he used the phrase or not, it obviously applies to his theory. So either quit supporting his theory or own the concept. Just because you are embarrassed by Social Darwinism doesn’t mean it isn’t a predictable conclusion from your worldview.

**Yes, they are pro-abortion, and yes, they are extremists. They want more abortions, not less, as noted in the Democrats’ platform: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” Translation: If you want taxpayer-funded abortions, it is because you think the country isn’t killing enough children in the womb and we have to force pro-lifers to pay for more. And only 9% of people in the U.S. agree with their unrestricted stance on abortions while 84% want significant restrictions. And the Leftists want to deny conscience rights to medical workers. That’s extremism.

***The “Christian” Left is far more extreme in their pro-abortion agenda than the average pro-choice person, and the atheists support this agenda as well. They insist that life begins at the first breath and insist that Jesus is fine with killing unwanted children until that point. I realize how ridiculous their views sound and how many people must think I’m making a straw-man argument. But that is just because their own words are so clear and extreme: “According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.” More here about how to respond, with full, in-context quotes from them.

****My standard response to those playing the rape card:

I’m glad you brought up the topic of rape and incest. Those are terrible crimes that we should seek to prevent, and we should ensure that the victims aren’t further victimized and that there is justice for the rapists. If you propose the death penalty for the rapist I’d consider that, but why is it the first option for the innocent child? It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization.

Rapes results in less than 1% of abortions. Those abortions are still wrong, but for the record, would you oppose outlawing all abortions, except those in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? If not, then why not admit that you are really just pro-abortion and you use the rape card to advance your cause? Do not exploit rape victims to justify abortion. https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/planned-parenthood-overview/

The notion that our political views shouldn’t be informed by our religious beliefs is absurd. Those who hyperventilate about “theocracies” and “separation of church and state” (a phrase that many people now realize wasn’t in the Constitution) are just trying to silence Bible-believing Christians. If you take their views to their logical conclusion it would mean we should always do the opposite of what our religious beliefs would dictate. Our Christian views inform our political views about stealing and murder being wrong, so do we have to be silent on those as well?

And it would mean that those people would have to use the same arguments against religious people on the Left. But Leftists have used those canards for years in the most hypocritical ways. Here’s a recent example:

Good Morning America’s Sara Haines responded that she “loved” that “we’re standing together” on support for the LGBT community but warned religion needed to stay out of politics. Considering Islam was the religion which drove the shooter to commit mass-murder, you would think that particular one would be getting the lecture. But Haines followed Goldberg’s lead and scolded Christian conservative politicians to keep their religions “at home” and “in your family” but not in “our politics.”

Here’s a simple response to anyone who says things like that: Please show me one place in recorded history, including anywhere on the Internet, where you used the same reasoning to silence the “Christian” Left. After all, they attempt to “force” their religious views on us at every turn: They insist that Jesus is so pro-abortion that it must be legal to kill the child up to her first breath*, that you have to petition the government to redistribute wealth by force, that you must teach 5 yr. old children how great the gay lifestyle is and how they might not “really” be their biological gender, that Jesus is against capital punishment, that you can’t control your borders, that you can’t go to war to protect your country, etc. They are loud and proud about “forcing” their religious views on the populace, so why don’t you apply your beliefs to them?

As you can imagine, all you will get is crickets chirping. They live 24×7 in their Leftist education / media / government / entertainment echo chambers so they don’t realize that they are being so transparently hypocritical. If voting in line with your religious views is always wrong then they should apply that to those on the Left as well. But they don’t, because they are just using a rhetorical trick to shut you up.

Don’t let them get away with it. We are self-governed, in the sense that we elect our representatives. Therefore, we are obliged to let our morality influence our political views.

Also consider that one of the complaints about Christianity is that parts of the church were “silent” during the Holocaust, slavery or civil rights movements, which in some people’s eyes implied approval.

The “wall of separation” argument has been misunderstood and misapplied. It is not in any founding government documents. Even when Jefferson wrote about the “wall” in a private letter, it was not in the context of the government limiting religious activities in public. It was to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with religious expressions.

If you want to bring Jefferson’s letter into the debate, then fairness requires bringing in the background letters of the founders which reflect how they really felt about God and government.

Here is the First Amendment in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now focus on the complete portion of the first amendment relating to religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” That’s it!

Was the intent of the 1st Amendment to restrict religious liberties or protect them? You need to answer that before addressing any related issues. The Bill of Rights was written to give rights to citizens, not government.

The first freedom in the First Amendment is religious freedom. The Amendment was made to give religious freedom to religious people so Congress could not pass laws limiting their freedoms. It was not written to protect atheists from religious expression in the public square. If you look at successive drafts of the First Amendment, this becomes more and more clear.

According to the Constitution, any state could have their own religion (provided that their own constitution permitted it). Not that I think that would be a good idea. Also, there is nothing to suggest that churches can’t partner with the government (though I am leery of churches that come to rely on government aid).

But do I want, for example, religion taught in public schools? Definitely not. There are countless theologically bankrupt churches I wouldn’t send my kids to on a bet. So why would I trust that any government sponsored religious teachings would be doctrinally sound?

The U.S. does not become a de facto theocracy if our religious beliefs inform our politics. We still need go in the public square to persuade the countless non-Christians that our views make sense. For example, when I train people in pro-life reasoning at the pregnancy center where I volunteer, I always break the reasoning into secular and religious arguments. It is actually quite simple to argue the pro-life position without using the Bible.

If atheists or people of other faiths disagree with us, that is fine. It is part of the process. But anytime someone acts as if your religious beliefs shouldn’t inform your political views, they are wrong. The 1st Amendment protects that right, it doesn’t restrict it.

So while I wouldn’t want pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpit, the notion that the Left gets to label something as political to prevent us from talking about it in church (e.g., abortion) is ridiculous. Why would any Christian think that something is outside the sovereignty of God?

—–

*The “Christian” Left is far more extreme in their pro-abortion agenda than the average pro-choice person. They insist that life begins at the first breath and insist that Jesus is fine with killing unwanted children until that point. I realize how ridiculous their views sound and how many people must think I’m making a straw-man argument. But that is just because their own words are so clear and extreme:”According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.” More here about how to respond, with full, in-context quotes from them.

Foolish and hypocritical Leftists are going around saying “Love is love is love is love is love is love” while expressing nothing but hatred towards Christians.

Response: Equivocation is equivocation is equivocation . . .

That is, they are cheating with their definition of “love” and pretending we oppose people loving each other. Real love is having the long-term best interests of others at heart. The Left does not offer that.

We don’t care who you love (in the proper sense of the word), we are just telling you that the one true God views homosexual sex as active rebellion against him. Don’t like it? Take it up with him. That’s not hateful to tell you that. And that isn’t what makes some gays kill themselves. The LGBXTQX lobby hates me 24×7 and I sleep well at night.

Oh, and Islam hates Jews, Christians, gays, etc. so much that they will keep trying to kill all of them if they don’t submit. Or even if they do.